Open
Conversation
…s for links in a document (not `route("./foo")`). See #138.
developit
force-pushed
the
tiny-relative-links-solution
branch
from
e5dc96d to
0e68437
Compare
Member
Author
|
I believe this needs to steal from the other relative links PR to enable |
ricardobrandao
approved these changes
Sep 25, 2017
ricardobrandao
left a comment
ricardobrandao
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems good to me. The behaviour was only changed in this line to take the current search and hash into account. Anything else is optimizations/inlining.
fend25
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2017
|
Does Preact currently support relative URLs? If not, is there a suggested solution to adding query parameters to a current history entry? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Just an alternative thought for #138. This only handles the case of relative links in an HTML document - it doesn't account for
route('./foo'). Perhaps they are worth treating separately given the different in implementation complexity. This PR actually drops the lib size by a few bytes.